NuclearKangaroo:[quote="Windknight" post="9.857622.21256706"]1- she choose to dress like that, her fucking decision, if its "sexualized", why do you care?

2- you still have not addressed my attractive female villain argument

She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.

And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.

regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases

is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women

Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.

I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.

I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.

I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.

what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction

and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second

if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?

but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?

you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive

You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.

Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.

Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.

Also thanks for posting that Rikku cosplay picture, that woman has a truly gorgeous smile, and those eyes, stunning.

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."

I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.

A more accurate summation -

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"

Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.

let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such

with that out of the way:

"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."

so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized

1- she choose to dress like that, her fucking decision, if its "sexualized", why do you care?

2- you still have not addressed my attractive female villain argument

She chose to dress like character as cosplay. Your expecting me to comment a person when in reality I'm going to have the character she chose influence my judgement.

And again, the 'hypothetical villain' you were asking me to judge on was based on said character - a teenage girl wearing a bikini. You cant separate the two and act like the fact said hypothetical villain is wearing a sexualised outfit is not relevant when sexualising depends heavily on how the character looks, dresses, poses and is presented.

right after you said:

[quote]

Your not exactly helping your argument by posting a character who's outfit is a string bikini top and hot pants. Pretty much the definition of a sexualised outfit.

damn right i expect you to defend that absurd position

"shes allowed to dress as she damn well pleases and thats bad"

the hypothetical villain is based around that person because, shes not an outfit, like i said, i think the most attractive aspects of her are her face and smile

im absolutely blaffed that you couldnt see past her outfit, that you couldnt see the unbelievable beautiful woman behind that costume, im honestly kind of disgusted by your way of thinking

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."

I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.

A more accurate summation -

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"

Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.

let me quote the video of jim sterling you send me, cuz im a fan of the man, but let me tell you hes not infallible and he himself has said such

with that out of the way:

"objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item soemthing we are meant to possess... ...women are allowed to dress skimpily, they are allowed to be hit on, they are allowed to be fucked, but they are not allowed to initiate a sex scene, not allowed to be playable during a sex scene..."

so in that sense, a character that is both skimpily dressed and allowed to make his/her own decisions, "agency" as jim puts it, is not objectified, and if that character is a female and you are going to argue she is sexualized, then im afraid a male character with the same attributes and also skimpily dressed is also sexualized

You seem to be ignoring presentation and posing. Scantily clad women are draped over the scenery and are generally in pin-up poses, or put into impossible or uncomfortable poses that maximise their sexualisation.

Men are given poses of power, strength and fortitude, or shown defeating powerful foes. Even when presented as beefcake for romance novels, their poses are of strength, power, even dominance. Its telling from the Jim C Hines posts that all the female poses he imitated caused him discomfort or pain, while only one of the male poses caused him mild discomfort.

Even when sexualised, men are given a lot more dignity and agency than women are.

Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.

I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.

I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.

I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.

what about vaan then? is he sexualized as well? what if its just part of the game's art direction

and hell even if it wasnt, lets look at fucking pop-culture for a second

if men dont care about sexualized portrayal of men, why should women care?

but well, look, we are getting ahead of ourselves, lets backpedal a little bit, i posted a picture of a beautiful woman, and you said it was sexualized, despite the fact this person willingly chose to dress like that, why-do-you-care?

you still havent answered my question, if this woman was a character in a game and i killed her, is that "sexualized" violence? i do find the woman attractive

You've made some decent arguments so I refuse to believe that you're not intelligent enough to recognize the difference between between a sexualized male character and a male power fantasy for the benefit of a male audience (just for reference, every character you posted falls squarely into the later category). Likewise I know you know the difference between a character that you personally find attractive, and a character purposefully designed as a sex object by their creator, regardless of whatever crossover there is between the two. For example, I find the character of Edward Kenway to be attractive, I like his design, his personality and his personal philosophy. He exudes a sense of freedom that is immensely attractive to me. But he's not sexualized, we never see him walking around in a fucking banana hammock because that wouldn't make sense for the character, violence against him has no sexual edge because he's not an inherently sexual character. But when you treat murder like a moneyshot (the saints trailer does literally this, with slo mo effects and close ups of the saints spattered cleavage and faces as they get blood facials) then you have a problem.

Have you ever seen Drive? Because that's a decent movie that has a good example of violence against a sexy character that doesn't come off as creepy or exploitative. The woman in question is played by Christina Hendricks (who in my personal opinion is one of the sexiest ladies in Hollywood), she's a prostitute who gets her head blown off, there's no warning, no slow motion lead up or reaction shot, just a flash of brains and blood. It's a brutal and indiscriminate murder, and it's treated as such. It's not meant to titillate, she's not wearing skimpy lingerie, but even if she was it'd be the same scene, with the same visceral effect. Nicholas Winding Rhefn, the director, regularly uses sexual violence in his movies, but never sexualized violence, and the difference between the two is key. It's in the portrayal of the act.

Personally I don't take issue with the Hitman level in question. The level fits with the game's grind house/exploitation flic aesthetic and I found that the narrative the level was weaving was realistically dark and disgusting, places like this exist, people who exploit people like this exist, and they should drop dead. The strippers are portrayed as disempowered and abused, yet still protective and caring of one another. The act of using that poor woman's body as a distraction has the effect of forcing the police into investigating the human trafficking ring the club owner is a part of. If anything that level demonizes the patrons and owner of the club, portraying the patrons as pathetic (which they are) and the club owner as a morality starved piece of human offal (which he is). I appreciate what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do, I don't particularly think she's a con woman, I think she's enthusiastic but inept. I hope that a real feminist scholar will replace her at some point as the mouthpiece of feminism in gaming.

well ive yet to hear someone tell me how rikku is a sexual object, Windknight only said

"The character she's cosplaying as goes around in all situations in a bikini, and the other elements of her clothes are more about accentuating her bare skin that covering it."

like i said i havent played FFX, and this argument doesnt seem sound because vaan in FFXII had kind of a skimpy outfit as well, to me, it seems like a matter of art direction, not a concious decision to "sexualize" a character

another problem i have with "sexualization" is that everyone has different tastes when it comes to whats sexy and whats not, obviously some things are more common than others, but in my time on the internet ive seen some weird shit

i think when you try to impose rules on something so relative it just doesnt work

i do think anita is a con artist, and someone who does more harm to the cause of better female characters than good, i honestly think female characters could be portrayed better in games, granted i dont think the situation is as bad as some people say, but there are weaknesses, i love me some good characters, and therefore having more good female characters would be an amazing thing in my book

You seem to be ignoring presentation and posing. Scantily clad women are draped over the scenery and are generally in pin-up poses, or put into impossible or uncomfortable poses that maximise their sexualisation.

you are not critizing the character for being an object, you are not critizing it for having pin-up poses, you are critizing it for wearing a bikini while letting scantily dressed male FF characters pass

Men are given poses of power, strength and fortitude, or shown defeating powerful foes. Even when presented as beefcake for romance novels, their poses are of strength, power, even dominance. Its telling from the Jim C Hines posts that all the female poses he imitated caused him discomfort or pain, while only one of the male poses caused him mild discomfort.

Even when sexualised, men are given a lot more dignity and agency than women are.

what if a women is shown doing the exact same thing?

why do you keep bringing the whole picture when discussing individual cases

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

i think its pretty clear i was talking about the real person, not the character, this real, incredibly attractive person is a villian, i have to kill her, is that "sexualized" violence whatever?

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

Human sexuality is a nebulous and complex thing, I like it rough, if my back is bloody by the end all the better (sorry to dump my kinks out), but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing women (or men for that matter) in pain. In your hypothetical game if your amazingly beautiful super villainess met her end in a normal-video gamey death scene (dramatic speech, promises of vengeance with her dying breath, you know what I mean) kinda deal I'd have no problem with it and I don't think anyone else would either. But if you spattered her face and tits with blood and had her clothing rip and the camera lingered lovingly on said face and tits then I'd be grossed out and disappointed (disappointed mostly because a woman like that deserves better).

Also I didn't mean to imply Rikku was sex object in my previous post. I love her character, I really like al the al bhed but Rikku in particular because she's willing turned herself into a pariah in order to fight against dumb religious dogma that will directly result in the death of a family member. I even think her outfit makes sense within the context of the world (everyone has some weird, strappy fashion but the al bhed especially) and particularly when you take into account that she's one of like three characters who can fight underwater in FFX. Rikku's great, and that Rikku cosplayer is great.

I agree with a lot of what Anita objects to but holy s**t does she like using examples of things that also apply to male characters. In fact I almost lose count sometimes, like when she talked about children's toys encouraging young girls to cook and raise children. Sure they do but how is teaching those ideas to little girls terrible but teaching little boys that killing and fighting are all totally awesome is A-OK? It's just 2 flavors of cultural brainwashing and some might argue that teaching useful life skills is less offensive than teaching mindless violence.

I mean I try to like her but in the end I can only come to a single conclusion: We needed an Anita Sarkeesian but Anita Sarkeesian wasn't the Anita Sarkeesian we needed. The games industry needs to change it's represenation of women (because frankly even I'm sick of seeing it and I'm a man) but we need somebody who can deal with the criticism, proof read her own work for obvious fallacies and present her ideas in such a way that doesn't seem like an emotionless robot with sarcastic drawn on eyebrows is telling everybody that man are inherently misogynistic dinosaurs.

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

Is she being presented in a sexually attractive manner? is she being posed, presented and acting in a manner thats more about putting emphasis her sexual appeal over her ability to actually fight? How is she attired? what are her combat actions, what are her voice samples?

Your giving me one variable when a lot more are involved. You are oversimplifying things

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! It's obviously a male power fantasy because we all know guys like looking scantily clad men with rippling muscles and women don't find that attractive at all."

I mean Christ, so many of your arguments here rely on double standards and willful ignorance it's not even funny.

A more accurate summation -

"This woman was designed to wear revealing clothing so men can stare at her tits and ass and vulva, and the only value she has is to do so for the readers! This is sexualized and objectification!"

"This man was designed to wear revealing clothing! Look at him smash and destroy and look big and powerful and manly, show honour, fortitude and courage! This is idealization!"

Please don't talk of willful ignorance and then make such a foolish post.

It's still an incredibly broad generalization to say that any woman that's designed with revealing clothing (yeah, it's not like women ever intentionally choose to wear these kinds of outfits because they want to wear them, it's just men trying to objectify them) is sexualized objectification and that all musclebound scantily clad men are always nothing more than male power fantasies (especially when a lot of romance novels will feature these kind of men on their covers, I suppose those are just male power fantasies too though). It's also pretty shitty to insinuate that just because a woman is portrayed as wearing revealing clothing that somehow devalues them as a character or that they have nothing else to them other than that. You seem to be focusing way to hard on a single aspect when that isn't the full picture.

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

Is she being presented in a sexually attractive manner? is she being posed, presented and acting in a manner thats more about putting emphasis her sexual appeal over her ability to actually fight? How is she attired? what are her combat actions, what are her voice samples?

Your giving me one variable when a lot more are involved. You are oversimplifying things

says the person accusing one character of being sexualized for what shes wearing

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

i find this person attractive and im forced to commit violence agaisnt her, what else do you need?

its incredible how hard it is to communicate even the most simple idea to you, i have to use pictures and examples

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

Mr Companion:I agree with a lot of what Anita objects to but holy s**t does she like using examples of things that also apply to male characters. In fact I almost lose count sometimes, like when she talked about children's toys encouraging young girls to cook and raise children. Sure they do but how is teaching those ideas to little girls terrible but teaching little boys that killing and fighting are all totally awesome is A-OK? It's just 2 flavors of cultural brainwashing and some might argue that teaching useful life skills is less offensive than teaching mindless violence.

I mean I try to like her but in the end I can only come to a single conclusion: We needed an Anita Sarkeesian but Anita Sarkeesian wasn't the Anita Sarkeesian we needed.

Well put, I think most reasonable gamers will admit that representation of women in games could be better but goddamnit if she doesn't muddy the waters with her misguided and uninformed arguments. Hopefully an actual feminist scholar will step up to open a dialogue with game developers so we can have better, deeper characters of both sexes. Too often detractors of modern, mainstream feminism forget that it's actually advocating for the real men's issues too, such as the issue you brought up. I don't only want to play as gruff, maladjusted guys.

We should all just go read coelasquid's excellent webcomic- manly guys doing manly things. I swear that thing is just brimming with wisdom.

i think its pretty clear i was talking about the real person, not the character, this real, incredibly attractive person is a villian, i have to kill her, is that "sexualized" violence whatever?

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

Human sexuality is a nebulous and complex thing, I like it rough, if my back is bloody by the end all the better (sorry to dump my kinks out), but that doesn't mean I enjoy seeing women (or men for that matter) in pain. In your hypothetical game if your amazingly beautiful super villainess met her end in a normal-video gamey death scene (dramatic speech, promises of vengeance with her dying breath, you know what I mean) kinda deal I'd have no problem with it and I don't think anyone else would either. But if you spattered her face and tits with blood and had her clothing rip and the camera lingered lovingly on said face and tits then I'd be grossed out and disappointed (disappointed mostly because a woman like that deserves better).

Also I didn't mean to imply Rikku was sex object in my previous post. I love her character, I really like al the al bhed but Rikku in particular because she's willing turned herself into a pariah in order to fight against dumb religious dogma that will directly result in the death of a family member. I even think her outfit makes sense within the context of the world (everyone has some weird, strappy fashion but the al bhed especially) and particularly when you take into account that she's one of like three characters who can fight underwater in FFX. Rikku's great, and that Rikku cosplayer is great.

oh my god HSoTD, ive only seen clips of it, now those are some ridiculous boobs physics and i can agree those exist for the pleasure of the male viewer, theres really no reason for them to be there

my friend and i used to joke how in one scene boobs seemed to literally move faster than a bullet

but not, im actually trying to discredit Windknight's definition of sexualized violence, which i think is dumb, because theres more than one way in which a character can be attractive and his definition marginalizes sex worker from any sort of violence in a game, which is stupid

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

man i love this girl so much i dont even want to think about killing a character based on her in a video game, but for the sake of the argument that happens, is just the usual villain affair, speech and all and she dies, her death isnt sexual in any way shape or form, but according to Windknight, is still sexualized violence because i found the character attractive

now that i think of it, this would be an interesting idea for a video game, a character the player is supposed to like, hell probably find attractive, a would-be love interest, turned agaisnt him, and the player being forced to fight her

similar to the ending of MGS3, where snake is forced to kill the boss, of course their relationship was more along the lines of student and mentor, altough the game also turns a love interest into an antagonist, but you never fight her

A character, as in a fictional created character. It is played by Ozzy Osbourne, based on Ozzy Ozbourne but is Not Actually Ozzy osbourne... I mean, I never once saw him doing drugs or biting heads off bats, and I doubt Ozzy likes to hang out in the land of metal all day doling out upgrades to Eddie Riggs.

excellent now, listen:

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

It's still an incredibly broad generalization to say that any woman that's designed with revealing clothing (yeah, it's not like women ever intentionally choose to wear these kinds of outfits because they want to wear them, it's just men trying to objectify them) is sexualized objectification and that all musclebound scantily clad men are always nothing more than male power fantasies (especially when a lot of romance novels will feature these kind of men on their covers, I suppose those are just male power fantasies too though). It's also pretty shitty to insinuate that just because a woman is portrayed as wearing revealing clothing that somehow devalues them as a character or that they have nothing else to them other than that. You seem to be focusing way to hard on a single aspect when that isn't the full picture.

To go back to an earlier post (and the works of Jim C Hines) Women are posed as pin-ups and sex objects, draped over the scenery or put in impossible poses more about displaying there sexual characteristics and nothing else. The Female Book Cover poses Hines emulated were abut sex, nothing else, and were at the very least uncomfortable or even painful to hold.

Even the romance cover beefcakes are given poses of strength, power, and even dominance. Of the poses Hines emulated, only one gave him mild discomfort.

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Attractive is not sexualised. There's more to sexualisaton than a pretty face.

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

Sexualised violence (a mistyping from my original post I must admit... sexual violence is a very different thing, and I had intended sexualised) is violence where the victim is sexualised - presented in a manner that's sexually attractive and potentially arousing to the veiwer.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

then you better work more on your definitions, before saying stuff like

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

imagine a game where there is a villain character based around that cosplayer i showed you, this female character looks just like her, she is of course incredibly attractive by herself, regardless of outfits

got that? good

now i have to kill this character, as in the ingame avatar i control has to kill her, she is the villain and she did some bad stuff and such, since i find her attractive, is that "sexualized" violence?

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Of course not, but there is a difference between sexualized and attractive. The example you gave is difficult to talk about because their is no context given. If you look at a story and the story doesn't seem to have very much respect for women, then the fact that the villain is an absurdly dressed, sexually designed character would come off as a troubling choice on the developers part.

I dont really see a contradiction as I was invoking stuff like nudity and sexualised outfits, and we were talking about the kind of stuff in game prostitutes get put in.

last I checked just having a pretty face wasn't the sole factor in provoking arousal, though if you think you have your victory, feel free to celebrate it.

how about you take a look at what Azure23 wrote

I suppose I'd classify it as sexualized violence if the killing was presented in a certain way. Like have you ever seen high school of the dead? I heard zombie anime and got excited, anyway I watched the first few episodes (gotta give it a proper chance after all) and came away pretty thoroughly grossed out. It has panty shots of girls being disembowled and eaten, at one point the camera lingers on a huge breasted torso, just a torso. It's not great. Or there's a part in Hellsing Ultimate (I watched plenty of anime when I was a bit younger) where Alucard is slowly impaling a woman with the barrel of her long rifle, the scene goes on forever, her cheeks are flushed as if she's blushing, and she's moaning like she's getting off. These are both examples where the violence is meant to be sexually titillating, and specifically because it's happening to attractive women (although personally I think Hellsing character designs are waaaay to lanky). I have no problems with attractive characters getting killed or otherwise brutalized, the world can be a cruel place and good looks can make you a target more often than not, just don't present it in such a way that you (not you obv) expect me to be getting off to it.

this i could rightfully call sexualized violence, is violence that is literally meant to invoke sexual arousal, it is NOT an instance of violence being inflicted on a character that is presented in a sexually arousing or attractive way

all sexy characters would have plot shield then and that would be completely stupid

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

yes it does, if a character is attractive/arousing and has violence inflicted upon it, it doesnt mean its sexualized violence, at best you can argue its violence inflicted upon a sexualized character, is not the same thing and theres nothing wrong about it as long as this sexualized character is treated like any other character in the game

That depends on why the character looks the way they do. Obviously the hypothetical game developers made the character to look a certain way, why did they make her look like that? If there was some kind of valuable artistic reason to sexualize the character then I would totally stand behind their decision to do so. If not then I would have to ask what other reasons they might have for making the character look that way, and if the only reason is they wanted to kill a hot girl character then yes I would call that sexualized violence.

why?

just because a villain is attractive doesnt mean the game is sexist

Of course not, but there is a difference between sexualized and attractive. The example you gave is difficult to talk about because their is no context given. If you look at a story and the story doesn't seem to have very much respect for women, then the fact that the villain is an absurdly dressed, sexually designed character would come off as a troubling choice on the developers part.

And? Does that definition negate or eliminate mine? Not really. Both are an inappropriate combination of sexualisation and violence. Is this what this discussion going to be now, you splitting hairs and acting like you've found ultimate victory and rightness?

yes it does, if a character is attractive/arousing and has violence inflicted upon it, it doesnt mean its sexualized violence, at best you can argue its violence inflicted upon a sexualized character, is not the same thing and theres nothing wrong about it as long as this sexualized character is treated like any other character in the game